Perfectly true, but I'd still have a redundant £800+ 12-24 lens, I think a 14-24 replacement that will work properly on an FX body is over £1300 isn't it?

How would it be redundant? It would work on your FX body with the DX frame. Some FX bodies automatically change the frame size when you mount a DX lens. That is about the price for the 14-24, I paid just under that a couple of years ago. That and the 24-70 are really holding their price, dammit, I have to keep lending mine to my son...

Simple, it won't physically fit on an FX body, it fouls the sensor. Anyway, that's what my local Nikon dealer has told me.

The sensor is at the focal plane- how can this be?! I would change your dealer. All Nikon lenses from the very first SLR lens will fit on the very latest camera- no Pentax syndrome here!All DX lenses will work on full-frame bodies; the only issue can be with vignetting if you use a filter, caused by the smaller circle of view produced by the DX lenses. Some DX lenses do foul on Nikon tele-converters by why would anyone use a tele-converter on a wide-angle lens?

There are plenty of discussions on the Nikon forums, e.g. :http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikond700/discuss/72157606409375279/?search=Nikon+12-24mm+DX+on+d700

It is unusual to find camera-shop staff who know what they are talking about, and not just because it unusual to find a camera shop...

Yes, sadly you do have a point, but the people in question were Nikon Professional dealer Robert White in Poole. It was a year or so ago, and I may not have taken it all in as they were selling me something else at the time, but I think what they said was that on a D700 body, my 12-24 Nikkor would effectively become an 18-24, which wouldn't be a great deal of use. I think they said there was some physical conflict at the wide end, and I got the impression that this problem would exist with any FX Nikon body. I'd be delighted to be proved wrong.

The sensor is at the focal plane- how can this be?! I would change your dealer. All Nikon lenses from the very first SLR lens will fit on the very latest camera- no Pentax syndrome here!All DX lenses will work on full-frame bodies; the only issue can be with vignetting if you use a filter, caused by the smaller circle of view produced by the DX lenses. Some DX lenses do foul on Nikon tele-converters by why would anyone use a tele-converter on a wide-angle lens?

There are plenty of discussions on the Nikon forums, e.g. :http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikond700/discuss/72157606409375279/?search=Nikon+12-24mm+DX+on+d700

Holy Moly, good to see you here!

Never used a DX, but I have to think the image circle is/can be too tight even if filterless. Not vignetting per se, just a smaller image circle causing other issues. Smaller image circles make for far less clarity at the perimeter, plus the DX lenses overall are not of the clarity and quality of the full-framers... partly why they're cheaper, and why plastic gets used on more DXs.

This engineering of lenses is true across the board, any lens with a smaller circle invariably costs less and isn't as sharp. Not to say "bad," just not as good. In cases of a long zoom or the more-difficult-to-build lenses, nowhere near as good.

I have a D700, and somewhere, a brochure for it (and, I suppose, a manual), the brochure should give a simple overvue of what's what. I'll have a look later. I still maintain that the FX Nikons can be switched, or can do so automatically when a DX lens is mounted, to DX format. You lose some pixels, but I use it sometimes if my old manual 300 isn't quite long enough, just to help compose. The D800 has so many pixels that even at a DX crop there are more than enough of the little blighters for most people.

Which is a long way of saying that with DX crop, your lens would still be a 12-24.

Which is a long way of saying that with DX crop, your lens would still be a 12-24.

I'm going to have to do some research on this, but could the problem be severe vignetting? He might have been talking out of his bottom, but I'm sure the Nikon-trained dealer told me that my 12-24 would become an 18-24 when attached to an FX body.

Has he lent you the D800 yet? I discovered I can run a dual OS on my Mac... so I can finally buy a D800E without buying a whole new computer, software, drives, blah, blah, blah. Now I just gotta decide if I'm staying in this fading business, still selling some work but it's going to take living on the road to make a proper go of it. In process now... We'll have fun if nothing else.

Kayemod, the math would make it an 18-36mm, though I gotta tell you that sounds like bad info regardless of training.

The only way that could be so is if the lens-to-plane distance changed between DX to FX, which can't be so...

Never used a DX, but I have to think the image circle is/can be too tight even if filterless. Not vignetting per se, just a smaller image circle causing other issues. Smaller image circles make for far less clarity at the perimeter, plus the DX lenses overall are not of the clarity and quality of the full-framers... partly why they're cheaper, and why plastic gets used on more DXs.

This engineering of lenses is true across the board, any lens with a smaller circle invariably costs less and isn't as sharp. Not to say "bad," just not as good. In cases of a long zoom or the more-difficult-to-build lenses, nowhere near as good.

The full-frame Nikons switch to DX mode, in other words, the rectangular image frame is smaller, so it only "sees" a portion of the smaller image circle; in effect it works exactly like a DX camera, smaller image size, smaller pixel count, lower quality but... hey, it's still great.

The D800 is absolutely superb, many working snappers are abandoning the so-called top of the range D3 and D4 uber-cams because it does not make sense any more to spend so much extra for arguably no gain (and broadcast-quality video comes as standard, folks). One unforeseen problem has arisen, the images take up a huge amount of storage; suddenly 1tB drives don't seem as big as they used to.

I still may buy a D700 instead, as money's a balancing act in anticipating living on the road. Great camera.

Oh yeah, nothing wrong with using DX lenses on a D700, issue-free if using in DX mode I'd imagine. What I was referring to with image circle was using a DX lens on a full-frame body in FX mode. Seems to me that wouldn't result in very sharp corners, the corners always being less sharp anyway and particularly on consumer glass — and/or would vignette especially on wider lenses. Teles shouldn't be a problem at all.

Hope you professionals and semi-pros won't think this fulltime writer/editor and amateur photographer/artist is in over his head, but the motorsports blog my newspaper allows me to pound out every so often has what I think (here comes the ego ) are some pretty neat images that I shot from races I went to in 2012. All from Road America, although a few Milwaukee Mile shots are coming in a future installment. I'm open to suggestions or criticism -- well, open to praise, too -- so I look forward to reading comments. It's at my "Out in the Marbles" blog; just click on the Jan. 31 entry. Thanks much.

I think you've done a fine job on both writing and shooting fronts. I, too love the DSR Stohr image from the inside of 6.

If I may, my advice would be to not worry too much about what anyone beyond your audience and client thinks — especially on the web. There's lots of jealousy out there, and lots of bitterness towards digital photography as well — and just a lot of angry people in general. I find the source of quality opinion to far outweigh the quantity. Since digital has really hurt my business, I'm one of the embittered ones in some ways, but that's never permission for insulting someone simply trying to do what I did.

The only "negative" I see is some photo repetition, though the captures themselves are pretty darned nice. I personally consider this a by-product of digital in some cases. When shooting film of limited supply, and paying for it, it tends to open the shooter up for getting a few here, a few there, a few everywhere. It's almost demanded that one moves around and tries many angles while there's still film left. Another thought is personally I prefer right-side images when possible, and have read somewhere this is because we who read left to right have a comfort zone for that. If you take a pan shot of the right side and compare it to the same image flipped, the right-side shot appears to be moving faster. In countries reading the other way, I suspect the opposite is true. These are things for possible improvement next time, but that's only my opinion and meant with the best of intentions.

I think you've done a fine job on both writing and shooting fronts. I, too love the DSR Stohr image from the inside of 6.

If I may, my advice would be to not worry too much about what anyone beyond your audience and client thinks — especially on the web. There's lots of jealousy out there, and lots of bitterness towards digital photography as well — and just a lot of angry people in general. I find the source of quality opinion to far outweigh the quantity. Since digital has really hurt my business, I'm one of the embittered ones in some ways, but that's never permission for insulting someone simply trying to do what I did.

The only "negative" I see is some photo repetition, though the captures themselves are pretty darned nice. I personally consider this a by-product of digital in some cases. When shooting film of limited supply, and paying for it, it tends to open the shooter up for getting a few here, a few there, a few everywhere. It's almost demanded that one moves around and tries many angles while there's still film left. Another thought is personally I prefer right-side images when possible, and have read somewhere this is because we who read left to right have a comfort zone for that. If you take a pan shot of the right side and compare it to the same image flipped, the right-side shot appears to be moving faster. In countries reading the other way, I suspect the opposite is true. These are things for possible improvement next time, but that's only my opinion and meant with the best of intentions.

Sorry about the Pack, we were bummed as well.

Hey, I meant it when I asked for feedback. My artistic likes/dislikes may well be far different from yours or anyone else's, so I don't mind. Well, as long as it's not "YOU S*CK" or the like. Besides, I have very little training in photography (although I have some in art) -- just learned it on the fly. And through tossing out lots of negatives, deleting plenty of images from the memory card ...

The left-side/right-side deal was weird. Most years, I end up with a better balance; for some reason, this year almost everything was going right to left. Think it was just that, as noted, I was looking for new locations, and they all just happened to be where the cars were heading that way.

The DSR is a favorite for sure, although I'm not sure I don't love Sargis' Spitfore as much. I got a good number of nice shots from that spot, but that one just really stood out from all the others, I think for the reasons noted in the post.

Yeah, end to the Packers' season. Honestly, kinda felt it coming, though -- the Pack just never looked like that dominant, overpowering force at any time this season. They did enough to win 13 games, and that was about it. Wait 'til next year. right?

I'm going to have to do some research on this, but could the problem be severe vignetting? He might have been talking out of his bottom, but I'm sure the Nikon-trained dealer told me that my 12-24 would become an 18-24 when attached to an FX body.

At last, everything is clear as day. Our resident Nikon digital expert Tony was correct in what he said, but what was being explained to me a year or so ago was the DX-cancelling function that exists with the D700 and D800. Although both cameras default automatically to DX mode when a DX lens is fitted, it is possible to cancel this to revert to FX full sensor mode, and that was what the Nikon dealer was explaining. He said that my 12-24 would become an 18-24, but this was just the usable picture area that avoided the inevitable corner darkening, or vignetting at the wide end. I've just had a lengthy and most helpful conversation with a couple of members of Nikon UK's support staff, and they confirmed all this. Interestingly they were dismissive of the idea that DX lenses are of significantly lower optical quality that those specifically designed for FX use, they told me that depending on the lens concerned, softening of the image towards the edges when DX lenses are used in FX mode would be almost imperceptible, and that vignetting was the only real problem, this is of course easy to see in the viewfinder, and easily dealt with. I do very little in-computer image manipulation, but I often do minor cropping, so no problem at all. No idea whether Nikon will produce an updated replacement for my D300 which is still current, but if they do, I'm sure it would be a more suitable choice than a D800 for my next photographic indulgence. I've never really had a problem with working with DX, if I can make good sharp A3 prints, that's all I require. the Nikon DX lenses are still excellent quality and usefully lighter and less expensive than their FX equivalents.

The D300 is a fine camera and there's many very good DX lenses from Nikon, but I have to comment on a couple things here... especially since I've proven for myself over the decades that so much "fact" from Reps is totally untrue. They're simply not out using the gear like anyone making their living at it is, and their information is passed among colleagues like wildfire. This is not to disrespect Nikon at all, just factors of business in a technological age.

First, why would the long end of the lens not be 36mm? I might be missing something here, but this makes no sense.

Second, the use of the term 'almost imperceptible' in describing loss of corner sharpness depends of one's definition of "almost." Either it's sharp or it isn't, and interpretations of that are far too subjective. All lenses are designed to cover only so much image circle in both coverage and clarity. When those bounds are exceeded — in this case by 150% — the corners get soft and darker rapidly, and by darker I mean light loss, not vignetting. Vignetting is not always perceptible in the viewfinder either, with a stop-down button it is but often doesn't show at normal wide-open aperture viewing (with any camera). In cases like this, it may not show up at all until later review, then it's like "Where did this come from?" Even modest cropping to eliminate any corner issues is simply further degrading to an image as well. As always it comes down to each user's needs, but better from the start is always better at the finish.

You'll never get a Rep to admit that the less-expensive consumer glass is miles behind the better stuff. This has been true as long as I've been shooting, and there's reasons beyond construction that justify the higher-priced glass. Not to say there's anything "wrong" with the cheaper glass, because for the mass majority of users it's plenty sharp and still far better than truly-cheap lenses — but only when used as designed.

I don't think 'expert' sits comfortably on my shoulders, but I'm pleased you've sorted it. As I said, I use the DX crop on my D700 on occasions, to 'lengthen' a lens. It is no better than cropping post-production, I just find it easier to frame the image in the viewfinder. I assume that the viewfinder reacts in the same way when a DX lens is attached, ie, the DX image area is highlighted in the screen, but the overall view remains as FX. I almost bought a 12-24 when I had a D200, but I just feel more at home with the classic 1:1.5 ratio of 35mm film, so waited until there was an FX body that I could afford.

It is very easy to be seduced into changing digital camera bodies, most of the time it's just not necessary. I'm as guilty as anyone in wanting more pixels, but I don't really need them. It still annoys me that to get a finer 'grain' you have to buy a new body, whereas in 'the good old days' you just bought a finer grain film for a few quid. Why can't digital bodies be upgraded with later sensors? I would pay a reasonable amount to have a D800 sensor put in my D700 body, there is nothing more that I need that the D800 offers.

Ah, but that's how digital cinema works. The modern digital cinema camera is just a box, like a Hasselblad. You can replace the back with new sensors giving different resolution, replace the chip, replace the lenses... Hasselblad in fact. Soon there will be such a still camera too.

But the market for these boxes is inevitably small, and small market = high price.

Incidentally, have you noticed that there is now a home theatre screen running 4000 pixels across resolution, which is the same resolution used by professional digital cinema cameras? And I thought my three different cameras running 1920 x 1080 were state of the art.

I won't post any more of these, as I know it is OT, but I just thought someone might be interested in the resolving power of a Nikon D800. I'm not saying this is the best that can be done, and it won't be long before even better sensors will come along, but I think it's pretty good.

I won't post any more of these, as I know it is OT, but I just thought someone might be interested in the resolving power of a Nikon D800. I'm not saying this is the best that can be done, and it won't be long before even better sensors will come along, but I think it's pretty good.

I recently got a D800 to replace my D300, but not for the reasons one might expect. Much of what I shoot is architectural interiors, and the smaller sensor turned my 24 mm perspective control lens into a 36 PC lens - not very useful! I needed the full-frame sensor to get my wide angle back.

It wasn't until after I started using it that I noticed the unbelievable resolution of the thing. If I want a closer shot than my limited lens selection allows, I'm better off shooting with the D800 and cropping than shooting with the D300 and using the whole frame. It just never seems to run out of pixels.

I've also been impressed by its low-light performance. I was shooting a rather dimly lit house concert on the weekend, and even hand-held at 3200 ISO it gives quite passable results. It is a very impressive piece of gear.

I recently got a D800 to replace my D300, but not for the reasons one might expect. Much of what I shoot is architectural interiors, and the smaller sensor turned my 24 mm perspective control lens into a 36 PC lens - not very useful! I needed the full-frame sensor to get my wide angle back.

It wasn't until after I started using it that I noticed the unbelievable resolution of the thing. If I want a closer shot than my limited lens selection allows, I'm better off shooting with the D800 and cropping than shooting with the D300 and using the whole frame. It just never seems to run out of pixels.

I've also been impressed by its low-light performance. I was shooting a rather dimly lit house concert on the weekend, and even hand-held at 3200 ISO it gives quite passable results. It is a very impressive piece of gear.

I'm right behind you, did you get the D800 or its E counterpart?

Thanks for posting that Tony. I looked at it in PS, at 100% screen res, and it's impressive indeed. Once I buy and test, the 4x5 may get sold off after all... > > mo money

I got the D800. I'm not sure if that was the best decision, but the results hve certainly given me absolutely nothing to complain about.

On another topic: some of you may know the magazine Black & White, which is a beautiful periodical about fine-art black and white photography. The latest issue arrived the other day, and I was gobsmacked to see that the cover was a gorgeous portrait of none other than Jim Clark. The photographer was Jesse Alexander, and the work looks mighty tasty. I haven't had a chance to read the story yet (it's my wife's subscription so she gets first shot at it), but I thought I'd mention the piece here.

Can you tell us a little more about this photo please? Like, who, where ( and exactly what )?

PS, this is the Lola Nissan R89C, and I photographed it on either the last day of March or the during first week of April, 1989. I have some notes in my diary, but the individual neg sheets aren't dated as they should be! I cannot tell you the names of the personnel, sadly, I either didn't know or I have forgotten, more likely the former.

I use the Canon 1D4 for motorsport and am very happy with it insofar as auto focus performance is concerned. Far from perfect, but very good, imo. I am getting a second body and am stuck choosing between the 5D Mk 3 and the 1DX. Optically, there is nothing (that worries me) to choose between them, BUT I don't want to take a step back in terms of missed focus shots from the 1D4.

I'm therefore keen to hear from anyone who has used the 1D4 as well as either (or both!) the 1DX and 5D3 for motorsport as regards (i) how the 1DX and 5D3 compare to each other in terms of auto focus accuracy and (ii) how either or both of these bodies compare to the 1D4.

I typically shoot single frame, so the amount of shots per second is not what I'm looking to rely on in the hope of getting more in focus pics!

IF anyone reading this has directly experienced any of these camera's trackside, your thoughts would be appreciated as regards the above.

I use the Canon 1D4 for motorsport and am very happy with it insofar as auto focus performance is concerned. Far from perfect, but very good, imo. I am getting a second body and am stuck choosing between the 5D Mk 3 and the 1DX. Optically, there is nothing (that worries me) to choose between them, BUT I don't want to take a step back in terms of missed focus shots from the 1D4.

I'm therefore keen to hear from anyone who has used the 1D4 as well as either (or both!) the 1DX and 5D3 for motorsport as regards (i) how the 1DX and 5D3 compare to each other in terms of auto focus accuracy and (ii) how either or both of these bodies compare to the 1D4.

I typically shoot single frame, so the amount of shots per second is not what I'm looking to rely on in the hope of getting more in focus pics!

IF anyone reading this has directly experienced any of these camera's trackside, your thoughts would be appreciated as regards the above.

Many thanks!

What you clearly need is the model with the best tracking focus, can't remember what it is called on a Canon, it's either 3D or Continuous Focus AF on my Nikon(I am assuming that you don't have a fixed point for which you know the focus is correct, and wait till the car hits the mark!). I would type "Canon 5D Mk3 review" into Google and check out Ken Rockwell, TechRadar and various magazine tests; they may give you a clue. The other method is to type in the names of top motor-sport photographers and see what comes up in their bios and what cameras they use/endorse.

What you clearly need is the model with the best tracking focus, can't remember what it is called on a Canon, it's either 3D or Continuous Focus AF on my Nikon(I am assuming that you don't have a fixed point for which you know the focus is correct, and wait till the car hits the mark!). I would type "Canon 5D Mk3 review" into Google and check out Ken Rockwell, TechRadar and various magazine tests; they may give you a clue. The other method is to type in the names of top motor-sport photographers and see what comes up in their bios and what cameras they use/endorse.

Thanks and yes, exactly - I agree on the needs aspect. As noted, I'm keen to hear from anyone who USES these camera's for motorsport about their ACTUAL experiences and evaluation of them. Ken Rockwell, Techradar et al don't provide such feedback, so that's why I asked the question here, hoping for feedback from people who actually use them for motorsport.

I use the Canon 1D4 for motorsport and am very happy with it insofar as auto focus performance is concerned. Far from perfect, but very good, imo. I am getting a second body and am stuck choosing between the 5D Mk 3 and the 1DX. Optically, there is nothing (that worries me) to choose between them, BUT I don't want to take a step back in terms of missed focus shots from the 1D4.

Many thanks!

If you're spending the sort of money associated with the cameras you mention, I don't think you're going to get an answer from the likes of me (40D & 5d Mk1 user) I would expect what you have already got to be as good as it gets, and the operator to be the limiting factor.